← All Phrases

“unexplained money”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 69ASection 69A5,888 judgments

The decision most relied on for unexplained money is (Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. (103 Taxmann.com 48), cited in 696 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on unexplained money

(Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.
103 Taxmann.com 48 · 2019 · Supreme Court
696
citing judgments

When assessing cash credits, share capital, or loans, the assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. This burden is not discharged merely by documentary evidence if field inquiries reveal accommodation entries or dealings with paper/shell companies.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.
342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court
658
citing judgments

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT
50 ITR 1 · 1963 · Supreme Court
581
citing judgments

The assessee bears the onus of proving the source and nature of any sum of money or receipt found to have been received by them. If the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the receipt, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.

Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT
37 ITR 288 · 1959 · Supreme Court
570
citing judgments

Where an assessee maintains regular books of account, and these books are not rejected or found defective by the Assessing Officer, any cash deposits or available cash shown in the cash book, if sufficient to cover the transaction, cannot be treated as unexplained income or an addition under sections 68 or 69A.

CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull
87 ITR 349 · 1973 · Supreme Court
525
citing judgments

The onus to prove that an apparent transaction or explanation is not real lies with the person who claims it to be so. If an assessee provides a plausible explanation for a transaction, the revenue must establish that the apparent transaction is not genuine.

Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT
107 ITR 938 · 1977 · Supreme Court
477
citing judgments

An assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of any cash credit or transaction. If the assessee fails to discharge this burden with cogent evidence and explanation, the Assessing Officer is justified in making additions to their income, and no further burden lies on the revenue.

CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd.
208 ITR 465 · 1994 · High Court
427
citing judgments

When an assessee seeks to explain a cash credit under Section 68, they must prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness or capacity to advance money, and the genuineness of the transactions. The burden of proof is not discharged merely by filing confirmatory letters or demonstrating banking channel transactions.

Chuharmal v. CIT
172 ITR 250 · 1988 · Supreme Court
340
citing judgments

The expression 'income' under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has a wide meaning, encompassing anything that comes in or results in gain. Therefore, an assessee's unexplained investments, such as purchasing articles or depositing cash, can legitimately be inferred and deemed as income under this section.

Judgments citing unexplained money

M/S Renukamata Multi State Co-Op. Urban Creditn Soc. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Asstt. CIT, CC-4(4), Mumbai

ITA 1726/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

collected the above said amount after 8.11.2016, which is not permitted. Accordingly, the A.O. took the view that the above said amount represents unexplained money of the assessee and assessed the same u/s 68 of the Act. The A.O. also charged income tax on the above said deposit ... collections and deposits have been duly recorded in the books of account and hence, there is no reason to treat the same as unexplained money of assessee. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that merely because demonetized notes ceased to be legal tender, it does not mean that the amount collected

M/S Renukamata Multi State Co-Op. Urban Creditn Soc. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Asstt. CIT, CC-4(4), Mumbai

ITA 1725/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra KansaraFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 142Section 153DSection 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Yogesh Balwant Patil, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward2(1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 910/PUN/2024[A.Y 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.910/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

notices. In the circumstances, the AO vide order dated 02.12.2019 completed the assessment u/s.144 of the Act making addition of Rs.76,55,422/- as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee and brought to tax as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved

Majhar Ismail Hashmi Sayad, Parbhani vs. Income Tax Officer & Tps, Parbhani

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 783/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.783/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Majhar Ismail Hashmi Vs. Ito & Tps, Parbhani. Sayad, Near Datta Mandir, Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani- 431514. Pan : Bzhps1440M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Umashankar Prasad Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order & Erred In Deciding The Issue Only On The Basis Of Material Available With Them, This Action Is Being Violative Of Principal Of Natural Justice. Your Appellant Prays For Granting Opportunity Of Hearing Before Lower Authorities. Without Prejudice To The Above Grounds Of Appeal, Following Grounds Are Also Taken On Merit:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Umashankar Prasad
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 274Section 69Section 69A

circumstances of the case and in law Learned Assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs.19,51,000 u/s 69 A- Unexplained Money, being cash deposits in UCO Bank A/c, without appreciating the fact appellant is an agriculturist and do not have any taxable income, and source of such money ... Officer proceeded to complete the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 vide order dated 09.11.2018 by making the addition of Rs.19,51,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act. 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

Bayjabaishamrao Nikam, Nashik vs. ACIT, Circle 2, Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 742/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.742/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bayjabai Shamrao Nikam, Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Nashik. Ghar No.844, Near Ramsetu Bridge, Gangaghat, Murlidhar Koat, Nikam Wada, Panchwati, Nashik- 422003 Pan : Amypn0716G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Smt. Umashankar Prasad Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.07.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.22,00,000 Made By The A.O. In The Assessment Order Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 By Treating Entire Cash Deposits Made During The Year Under Consideration As Unexplained Income Without Appreciating That The Said Addition Is Not Justified On Facts & In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Umashankar Prasad
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Assessing Officer completed the assessment vide order dated 24.12.2018 u/s 144 of the IT Act by making an addition of Rs.22,00,000/- as unexplained money. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order

Dupaguntla Pullarao, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 112/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.112/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Dupaguntla Pullarao, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-1(1), Pan: Bhmpd9811Q Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 29/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

relying on the information available on ITBA portal. Accordingly, 3 the Ld. AO treated the entire cash deposits of Rs. 43,68,500/- as unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act and invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. Thus, the Ld. AO completed the assessment

Ikon Overseas Private Limited, Bhopal vs. ITO 2(5), Bhopal

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

unexplained investment us 69. 5.The Id. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the application of section 69A Considering as unexplained money. 6.The appellant carves leave to add. amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal.” The assessee has raised following grounds in penalty appeal

Ikon Overseas Private Limited, Bhopal vs. ITO 2(5), Bhopal

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 53/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

unexplained investment us 69. 5.The Id. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the application of section 69A Considering as unexplained money. 6.The appellant carves leave to add. amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal.” The assessee has raised following grounds in penalty appeal

Sumer Prakash Khandaka, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for

ITA 586/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jul 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh (Adv.)
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 288ASection 69

erred in law as well as in facts while not considering financial situation of the assessee and considering cash deposit of Rs. 30723900.00 as unexplained money u/s 69 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee and imposed tax liability u/s 115BBE of the Act without ... under:- S. No. Description Amount(Rs.) 1. Income as perreturnofincome filed 9 [wn 2. Income as computed u/s 143(1)(a) cee 3. Add: Unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act 3,07,23,900/- 4. Add: Interest income 3,67,694/- 5. Add: Income from House property

Mrs. Kalavathi Arumugam, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 129/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri A Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 68Section 69

raised by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 26,79,000/- treating the same as unexplained money u/s 68 of the Act. 3. The necessary facts are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and working ... that the loan parties do not have sufficient credit worthiness to advance money to the assessee. Therefore, the AO treated the cash deposit as unexplained money u/s 69 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. . Page 3 of 5 5. On appeal

Ketan Anand Jadhav, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 26(2), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, appeal bearing ITA No 910/Mum/2024 is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 910/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Paras SavlaFor Respondent: ShriP.D. Choughule (All.CIT) SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRIAMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL

Vivek Ram Kotak, Mumbai vs. ITO-25(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the solitary ground in this appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 339/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Ito, Ward 25(1)(4), Vivek Ram Kotak Room No.206, 2Nd Floor, 36, Sterliing Tower No.9, 3Rd Cross Road, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To 43, Vs. Lokhandwala Complex, G-Block, Bkc, Bandra (E), Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bpbpk0060B Assessee By : Ms. Zarna Chandwani, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Zarna Chandwani, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) has erred in making additions on account of unexplained money under Section 69 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 03. Brief facts of the case shows that assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income on 15th

Ilyas Abdul Gaffar, Mumbai vs. Jurisdiction Ward 23(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 284/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Akshay Tapadiya, Sr. D/R
Section 69A

grievance of the assessee is that, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 40.33 Lakhs being cash deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Representatives were heard at length. Case records carefully perused and the relevant documentary evidence duly considered in light ... details, the AO accepted the contention of the assessee partly to the extent of Rs.49.60 Lakhs but considered the balance of Rs.40.33 Lakhs as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 8. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders

Cotton Nation, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-26(1), Mumbai

ITA 2163/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 133(6)Section 69A

National Faceless Appeal Centre, CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,70,885/- u/s. 69A as unexplained money.” 2. During the course of hearing, learned Authorised Representative (Ld. AR for short) of the assessee pleaded that the source of cash deposited is out of sales made

Sandeep, Greater Noida vs. ITO Ward 5(2)(3), Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2029/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyasandeep, Vs. Ito, Ward 5(2)(3), House No.197, Sunapura, Noida. Sohan Pura, Dhoon, Manikpur, Greater Noida – 201 306 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Cnzps3156F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Pallavi, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 Date Of Order : 29.07.2024 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 28.02.2024 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Law By Passing An Ex-Parte Order (Impugned Order) Without Discussing The Merits Of The Case & Dismissing The Appeal For Non-Appearance Making The Impugned Order Non-Est. 2. That In Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Ao Has Erred Both In Law & On Facts In Passing The Impugned Assessment Order U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) R/W Section L44B Of The Act Dated 02.03.2023 Which Is Erroneous & Not In Accordance With Law, Hence The Same Is Liable To Be Annulled.

For Appellant: Ms. Pallavi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 69Section 69A

circumstances the Ld. AO erred in law and on facts of the case by considering the gift from father of the Appellant as unexplained money u/s 69 A of the Act making the addition liable to be deleted.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that in this case, Assessing

Dilip Rangnath Pagare, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Aurangabad

ITA 972/PUN/2024[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jul 2024AY 2012-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Dilip Rangnath Pagare Plot No. 23, Gut No. 105, Pwd Housing Society, Aurangaba-431001. Pan: Bjcpp2914G. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(12), Aurangabad. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/07/2024 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Of The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1062379260(1) Dt. 11/03/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Nfac’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(12), Aurangabad [‘Ao’ Hereinafter] For Assessment Year 2012-13 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter];

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69A

best of his judgement and brought to tax entire amount of deposit in the hands of assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act vide assessment order dt. 28/11/2019. When matter travelled up in appeal, for the non- prosecution of appeal by the assessee the Ld. NFAC also confirmed

Avinash Rajendrakumar Gholap, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(5), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 861/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.861/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Avinash Rajendrakumar Vs. Ito, Ward-14(5), Pune. Gholap, A/P Gholapwadi, Uddhat Taluka Indrapur, Pune- 413103. Pan : Abjpg2776M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. S. Gudhate Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.04.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Erred In Passing Order Wherein Specific Request Of Adjournment Was Made By Assessee & Same Was Not Rejected By Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac).

For Appellant: Shri S. S. GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 144B(1)(xxiv)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 69A

National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). 2 2. Ld Assessing Officer erred in law in making addition amounting to Rs. 1,44,43,541/- as unexplained money u/s 69A in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The Ld Assessing Office erred in law in passing the Final Assessment ... made by the Appellant. 6. The Ld Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that cash deposits out of earlier cash withdrawals cannot be treated as unexplained money u/s 69A. 7. The Ld Assessing Officer erred in law in issuing Show Cause Notice (Draft Assessment Order) on 29/03/2022 and requiring Appellant

Surenderbabu Padakanti, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward 9(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 396/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Surenderbabu Padakanti, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Abopp0535C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal Appeared For Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal appeared for ShriFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, SR.AR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 69A

assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 45,10,200/- as an income of the appellant and further erred in treating the as unexplained money u/s 69A without giving any proper opportunity, is illegal arbitrary, 3 without assessing any valid reasons, and is perverse, highhanded is contrary to the provisions

Posina Jaya Lakshmi, Rajahmundry vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 120/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.120/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Posina Jaya Lakshmi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajahmundry. Ward-2(1), Pan: Cakpp2158N Rajahmundry. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 26/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 69A

solely in the hands of the assessee, and made assessment U/s. 144 of the Act treating the entire cash deposits as unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act. The Ld. AR also submitted that the Ld. AO has totally misunderstood the facts of the case and made the addition

Gorelal Parmar, Bhopal vs. ITO 2(5), Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 71/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Gorelal Parmar, Ito 2(5), 8, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal Arvind Vihar, Vs. Baghugliya, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bkxpp3183R Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

explaining the delay was granted. 4. The Id CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,04,70,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A. 5 The ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the application of section 69A moreover adopting section 115BBE. 6. The appellant